DETAILED ACTION
This final office action is in response applicant’s response filed 11/07/2025. Claims 1-24 and 35-40 are being examined and are pending. Claims 25-34 have been canceled.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
I. Applicant broadly traverses the rejection by asserting that the prior art references do not teach the claimed limitations. Applicant did not identify any specific missing elements or provide a detailed analysis of the alleged deficiencies. Although Applicant emphasized the limitation regarding matching RF fingerprints by underlining it, they provided no reasoning as to how the cited art fails to meet this requirement.
Primary reference Nelson taught, a method determines a first step pulse (corresponds to claimed device RF fingerprint) associated with a user carrying a key fob and detects a user device proximate the key fob. The method further identifies a second step pulse measured by the user device and determines whether the first and second step pulses match (corresponds to matching first RF fingerprint and reference RF fingerprint). If the step pulses match, the user carrying the key fob is identified as the owner of the user device. Para. 0032. If the step pulses do not match at 416, then method 400 returns to 402 to continue analyzing received step pulse information. The non-matching step pulses indicate that different people are carrying the key fob and the other user device. Para. 0026. A lock activation module 212 in vehicle controller 104 is connected to one or more lock mechanisms in vehicle 102 and is capable of sending lock instructions and unlock instructions to each lock mechanism in the vehicle. See also Para. 0028, 0030-0032.
Secondary reference Markus explicitly taught that if the entered person-specific characteristic matches one of the stored characteristics, the person concerned has correctly identified himself. For process automation devices, this means that the person has access to this device and can thereby change parameters and settings on the device. One possibility is to use a person's fingerprint as a person-specific characteristic. Alternatively, an iris image of the eyes can be used as a person-specific characteristic. Access to said device is granted when the inputted specific personal characteristics match the stored characteristics. (see the description section and abstract). Therefore, combination of Nelson and Markus taught the claimed limitations. See details in claim rejection section below.
II. The electronic terminal disclaimer filed on 11/06/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of any patent granted on US patent # 11,750,605 has/have been reviewed and accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0197763 A1 to Nelson et al. (“Nelson”) in view of WO 2004049239 A1 to Markus et al. (“Markus”).
Regarding claim 1, Nelson taught an electronic device comprising: a wireless transceiver; and a processor configurable to:
receive a signal transmission via the wireless transceiver (Para. 0025. The signal received from key fob 106 includes an identity of the person carrying the key fob);
determine a first radio-frequency (RF) fingerprint based on the signal transmission; (Para. 0031: detecting step pulse characteristics of a user carrying the key fob at 410.) and
responsive to the first RF fingerprint matching a reference RF fingerprint for a second device, process a data packet associated with the signal transmission, (Para. 0028 and 0032. Processor 304 executes one or more algorithms that compare the step pulse of the user carrying key fob 106 with another step pulse received from user device 110. If the comparison determines that the step pulses match, then processor 304 generates a signal (or other identifier) indicating that key fob 106 and user device 110 are currently being carried by the same user. Para. 0032. If the step pulses match at 416, the method continues at 418 as the key fob determines a user identity associated with the matching user device. Since the two step pulses match, the same person is carrying both the key fob and the other user device. Therefore, the key fob obtains the user identity from the other user device), grant a request from the second device to change a configuration (Para. 0026. A step pulse analysis module 218 is capable of analyzing various user step information and comparing multiple sets of step pulse information to determine whether the step pulse information is associated with the same user. A vehicle settings manager 220 manages and controls various vehicle settings, such as settings for a vehicle navigation system, an infotainment system, a climate control system, a seat adjustment system, a door lock/unlock system, and the like. Para. 0032. the key fob communicates the user identity to the vehicle which then accesses the user's profile data and sets the vehicle's configuration based on the user profile data. As discussed herein, the vehicle's configuration includes, for example, climate control parameters, vehicle navigation parameters, vehicle seat adjustments, heads up display parameters, entertainment system parameters, and the like. Claim 1 and 5. setting at least one vehicle configuration based on the user profile.); and
responsive to the first RF fingerprint not matching the reference RF fingerprint, ignore the data packet associated with the first signal transmission or deny the request to change the configuration (Para. 0032. If the step pulses do not match at 416, then method 400 returns to 402 to continue analyzing received step pulse information. The non-matching step pulses indicate that different people are carrying the key fob and the other user device. Para. 0026. A lock activation module 212 in vehicle controller 104 is connected to one or more lock mechanisms in vehicle 102 and is capable of sending lock instructions and unlock instructions to each lock mechanism in the vehicle).
Nelson taught after comparing the step pulse information, the user has access to the vehicle setting which implies the user has right to change the configuration, however, Markus explicitly taught that if the entered person-specific characteristic matches one of the stored characteristics, the person concerned has correctly identified himself. For process automation devices, this means that the person has access to this device and can thereby change parameters and settings on the device. One possibility is to use a person's fingerprint as a person-specific characteristic. Alternatively, an iris image of the eyes can be used as a person-specific characteristic. Access to said device is granted when the inputted specific personal characteristics match the stored characteristics. (see the description section and abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the applicant(s) invention was filed to modify the invention of Nelson by including the idea of grant a request from the second device to change a configuration of the electronic device as taught by Markus in order to identify a user and grant access (Markus, Abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Nelson further taught the electronic device of claim 1, further comprising a memory, wherein the reference RF fingerprint is stored in the memory (Para. 0021, 0026).
Regarding claim 4, Nelson further taught the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the signal transmission comprises a Bluetooth Low Energy signal transmission (Para. 0016, 0020).
Regarding claim 9, Nelson further taught the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configurable to stop processing the data packet responsive to the first RF fingerprint not matching the reference RF fingerprint (Para. 0032, 0026).
Regarding claim 12, Nelson further taught the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the electronic device is a vehicle (Para. 0019).
Regarding claim 13, Nelson further taught the electronic device of claim 12, wherein grating the request comprises locking or unlocking the vehicle, or starting or stopping a motor of the vehicle (Para. 0019, 0026).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al. in view of Markus as applied to claims 1 and in further view of US 20080235443 A1 to Chow et al. (“Chow”).
Regarding claim 2, Nelson-Markus combination taught the electronic device of claim 1, the combination did not but the analogous art Chow taught wherein the processor is configurable to retrieve the reference RF fingerprint from a memory that is remove from the electronic device (Para.[0014] In accordance with an aspect of the present invention, processing unit 2 is controlled by a program stored at least partially in flash memory device 3 such that processing unit 2 is operable selectively in: (1) a programming mode, where processing unit 2 activates the input/output interface circuit 5 to receive the data file and the reference fingerprint data from host computer 9, and to store the data file and the reference fingerprint data in flash memory device 3; (2) a data retrieving mode, where processing unit 2 activates the input/output interface circuit 5 to transmit the data file stored in flash memory device 3 to host computer 9; and (3) a data resetting mode, where the data file and the reference finger data are erased from the flash memory device 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the applicant(s) invention was filed to modify the combined invention of Nelson and Markus by including the idea of retrieving the reference RF fingerprint from a memory that is remove from the electronic device as taught by Chow in order to enhance the security (Chow, Para. 0014).
Claims 5-6, 7-8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al. in view of Markus as applied to claims 1 and in further view of US 9,110,148 B1 to Coakley et al. (“Coakley”).
Regarding claim 5, Nelson-Markus combination taught the electronic device of claim 1, the combination did not but the analogous art Coakley taught wherein the processor is configurable to determine the first RF fingerprint based on an amplitude of the signal transmission (Para. 0033. FIG. 5 is a flow diagram depicting a method of detecting multiple pulses 500 in a received RF signal according to an embodiment of the present invention… The second parallel path comprises a magnitude low pass filter and optionally a logarithmic amplitude converter. The magnitude LPF is tuned to pass the magnitude information for signals matching a video bandwidth of interest for that parallel processing path. In this way, the video bandwidth is sufficient to capture pulses of the desired pulse width while lowering the effective noise bandwidth.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the applicant(s) invention was filed to modify the Nelson-Markus combination by including the idea of determine the first RF fingerprint based on an amplitude of the first signal transmission as taught by Coakley in order to detect pulses in a received RF signal (Coakley, Para. 0033).
Regarding claim 6, Nelson-Markus-Coakley combination further taught the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configurable to determine the first RF fingerprint based on a phase of the signal transmission (Coakley, Para. 0033. Based on the magnitude and phase information, pulses are detected and PDW information relating to detected pulses (block 509).).
Regarding claim 7, Nelson-Markus-Coakley combination further taught the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configurable to determine the first RF fingerprint based on a signal energy of the signal transmission (Coakley, Para. 0033, Signal strength).
Regarding claim 8, Nelson-Markus-Coakley combination further taught the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configurable to determine the first RF fingerprint based on a frequency of the signal transmission (Coakley, Para. 0033, Frequency).
Regarding claim 10, Nelson further taught the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the reference RF fingerprint is stored in a database, and wherein the data comprises another RF fingerprint associated with another device (Para. 0021).
Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al. in view of Markus as applied to claims 1 and in further view of US 8,954,601 B1 to Patro et al. (“Patro”).
Regarding claim 11, Nelson-Markus combination taught the electronic device of claim 1, the combination did not but the analogous art Patro taught wherein the processor is configurable to authenticate the second device based on the first signal transmission on a per-packet basis (Col.7, lines 24-29. SMH 46 may apply the security associations on a per-packet basis, i.e., by authenticating and encrypting/decrypting individual packets. In addition, the decision to apply the security association may be made on a per-packet basis for a communication socket).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the applicant(s) invention was filed to modify the Nelson-Markus combination by including the idea of authenticating the second device based on the first signal transmission on a per-packet basis as taught by Patro in order to secure the outbound flow of the routing protocol messages (Patro, abstract).
Claims 14-16 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0197763 A1 to Nelson et al. (“Nelson”) in view of US 2012/022930 A1 to Brouhard et al. (“Brouhard”).
Regarding claim 14, Nelson taught an electronic device comprising: a wireless transceiver; and a processor configurable to: while operating in a training mode: receive a first signal transmission via the wireless transceiver, determine a reference radio-frequency (RF) fingerprint of a second wireless device based on the first signal transmission, and store the reference RF fingerprint in a database; (Para. 0031, Method 400 also detects step pulse characteristic of a user (i.e. reference RF fingerprint) carrying the other user device at 412. In some embodiments the step pulse characteristics of the other user device are included in the broadcast data generated by the other user device. Para. 0020. [0020] In some embodiments, vehicle controller 104 detects key fob 106 and/or user devices 110 when they are within a predetermined distance of vehicle 102. In some implementations, vehicle controller 104 communicates with key fob 106 and/or user devices 110 using Bluetooth and/or Bluetooth Low Energy wireless communication system. Claim 1. identifying a second step pulse measured by the user device; like. Para. 0026. A step pulse manager 216 receives, manages, and stores various step pulse information associated with one or more users of vehicle 102. The stored step pulse information is used, for example, to identify a user approaching vehicle 102 based on current step pulse data received from key fob 106 or user device 110.) and while operating in an identity authentication mode: receive a second signal transmission via the wireless transceiver, determine a first RF fingerprint based on the second signal transmission, (Para. 0025. The signal received from key fob 106 includes an identity of the person carrying the key fob. Para. 0031: detecting step pulse characteristics of a user carrying the key fob at 410.) and responsive to the first RF fingerprint matching the reference RF fingerprint, grant or process a request associated with the second signal transmission (Para. 0028 and 0032. Processor 304 executes one or more algorithms that compare the step pulse of the user carrying key fob 106 with another step pulse received from user device 110. If the comparison determines that the step pulses match, then processor 304 generates a signal (or other identifier) indicating that key fob 106 and user device 110 are currently being carried by the same user. Para. 0032. If the step pulses match at 416, the method continues at 418 as the key fob determines a user identity associated with the matching user device. Since the two step pulses match, the same person is carrying both the key fob and the other user device. Therefore, the key fob obtains the user identity from the other user device. Para. 0026. A step pulse analysis module 218 is capable of analyzing various user step information and comparing multiple sets of step pulse information to determine whether the step pulse information is associated with the same user. A vehicle settings manager 220 manages and controls various vehicle settings, such as settings for a vehicle navigation system, an infotainment system, a climate control system, a seat adjustment system, a door lock/unlock system, and the like. Para. 0032. the key fob communicates the user identity to the vehicle which then accesses the user's profile data and sets the vehicle's configuration based on the user profile data. As discussed herein, the vehicle's configuration includes, for example, climate control parameters, vehicle navigation parameters, vehicle seat adjustments, heads up display parameters, entertainment system parameters, and the like. Claim 1 and 5. setting at least one vehicle configuration based on the user profile.).
Nelson didn’t disclose operating in a training mode, however, the analogous art Brouhard taught [0129] A "fingerprint" of the specific wireless environment in a store is calculated by a physical walk-around using a handheld spectrum analysis device during the "setup" phase. While the zone tracking system 700 may be in a "learning" mode during the "setup" phase, an item may be scanned and its description and signal strength may be sent to the location-tracking server 724. The data collected during the '"setup" phase may be later compared to deviations in the real-time environment to enable the zone tracking system to locate an electronic device associated with a consumer within the store. Thus, data collected, including signal strength and product information, is stored in respective databases 730 and 734 on the location-tracking server 724 (for later use) to identify offers associated with a particular zone (702, 704, and 708) containing a certain item. As more data is collected, the zone tracking system 700 learn the zone and product locations better, providing more accurate delivery of advertisements and offers to a consumer shopping in the store. [00131] In embodiments of the present invention, deployment of an RF fingerprinting-based zone tracking system may be divided into two phases: (1) the fingerprinting phase; and (2) the operating phase. During the fingerprinting phase, data is accumulated by performing a walk- around of the store with the electronic device 720.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the applicant(s) invention was filed to modify the invention of Nelson by including the idea of operating in a training mode as taught by Brouhard in order to deploy an RF fingerprinting-based zone tracking system (Brouhard, Para. 0131).
Regarding claim 15, Nelson-Brouhard combination further taught the electronic device of claim 14, wherein while operating in the training mode, the processor is configurable to receive the first signal transmission from the second wireless device located in a controlled location (Nelson, (Para. 0031, Method 400 also detects step pulse characteristic of a user (i.e. reference RF fingerprint) carrying the other user device at 412. Claim 9. the user device broadcasting information related to the second step pulse into an area proximate the user device (i.e. controlled location).).
Regarding claim 16, Nelson-Brouhard combination further taught the electronic device of claim 14, further comprising a memory, wherein storing the RF fingerprint in the database comprises storing the RF fingerprint in the memory (Nelson, Para. 0021, 0026).
Regarding claim 22, Nelson-Brouhard combination further taught the electronic device of claim 14, wherein the first signal transmission comprises a Bluetooth Low Energy signal transmission (Nelson, Para. 0016, 0020).
Regarding claim 23, Nelson-Brouhard combination further taught the electronic device of claim 14, wherein the electronic device is a vehicle (Nelson, Para. 0019).
Regarding claim 24, Nelson-Brouhard combination further taught the electronic device of claim 23, wherein granting the request comprises locking or unlocking the vehicle, or starting or stopping a motor of the vehicle (Nelson, Para. 0019, 0026).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al. in view of Brouhard as applied to claims 16 and in further view of US 20080235443 A1 to Chow et al. (“Chow”).
Regarding claim 17, Nelson-Brouhard combination taught the electronic device of claim 14, wherein storing the RF fingerprint in the database comprises storing the RF fingerprint in a memory (Nelson, Para. 0021, 0026) that is remove from the electronic device.
The analogous art Chow taught storing the RF fingerprint in the database comprises storing the RF fingerprint in a memory that is remove from the electronic device. (Para.[0014] In accordance with an aspect of the present invention, processing unit 2 is controlled by a program stored at least partially in flash memory device 3 such that processing unit 2 is operable selectively in: (1) a programming mode, where processing unit 2 activates the input/output interface circuit 5 to receive the data file and the reference fingerprint data from host computer 9, and to store the data file and the reference fingerprint data in flash memory device 3; (2) a data retrieving mode, where processing unit 2 activates the input/output interface circuit 5 to transmit the data file stored in flash memory device 3 to host computer 9; and (3) a data resetting mode, where the data file and the reference finger data are erased from the flash memory device 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the applicant(s) invention was filed to modify the combined invention of Nelson and Brouhard by including the idea of storing the RF fingerprint in the database comprises storing the RF fingerprint in a memory that is remove from the electronic device as taught by Chow in order to enhance the security (Chow, Para. 0014).
Claims 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al. in view of Brouhard as applied to claims 14 and in further view of US 9,110,148 B1 to Coakley et al. (“Coakley”).
Regarding claim 18, Nelson-Brouhard combination taught the electronic device of claim 14, the combination did not but the analogous art Coakley taught wherein the processor is configurable to determine the first RF fingerprint based on an amplitude of the second signal transmission (Para. 0033. FIG. 5 is a flow diagram depicting a method of detecting multiple pulses 500 in a received RF signal according to an embodiment of the present invention… The second parallel path comprises a magnitude low pass filter and optionally a logarithmic amplitude converter. The magnitude LPF is tuned to pass the magnitude information for signals matching a video bandwidth of interest for that parallel processing path. In this way, the video bandwidth is sufficient to capture pulses of the desired pulse width while lowering the effective noise bandwidth.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the applicant(s) invention was filed to modify the Nelson-Markus combination by including the idea of determining the first RF fingerprint based on an amplitude of the second signal transmission as taught by Coakley in order to detect pulses in a received RF signal (Coakley, Para. 0033).
Regarding claim 19, Nelson-Brouhard-Coakley combination taught the electronic device of claim 14, wherein the processor is configurable to determine the first RF fingerprint based on a phase of the second signal transmission. (Coakley, Para. 0033. Based on the magnitude and phase information, pulses are detected and PDW information relating to detected pulses (block 509).)
Regarding claim 20, Nelson-Brouhard-Coakley combination taught the electronic device of claim 14, wherein the processor is configurable to determine the first RF fingerprint based on a signal energy of the second signal transmission (Coakley, Para. 0033, Signal strength.)
Regarding claim 21, Nelson-Brouhard-Coakley combination taught the electronic device of claim 14, wherein the processor is configurable to determine the first RF fingerprint based on a frequency of the second signal transmission (Coakley, Para. 0033, Frequency).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 35-37 and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2021/0197763 A1 to Nelson et al. (“Nelson”).
Regarding claim 35, Nelson taught an electronic device comprising: a wireless transceiver; and a processor configurable to: receive a signal transmission via the wireless transceiver, determine a reference radio-frequency (RF) fingerprint of a second wireless device based on the first signal transmission, and store the reference RF fingerprint in a database; (Para. 0031, Method 400 also detects step pulse characteristic of a user (i.e. reference RF fingerprint) carrying the other user device at 412. In some embodiments the step pulse characteristics of the other user device are included in the broadcast data generated by the other user device. Para. 0020. [0020] In some embodiments, vehicle controller 104 detects key fob 106 and/or user devices 110 when they are within a predetermined distance of vehicle 102. In some implementations, vehicle controller 104 communicates with key fob 106 and/or user devices 110 using Bluetooth and/or Bluetooth Low Energy wireless communication system. Claim 1. identifying a second step pulse measured by the user device; like. Para. 0026. A step pulse manager 216 receives, manages, and stores various step pulse information associated with one or more users of vehicle 102. The stored step pulse information is used, for example, to identify a user approaching vehicle 102 based on current step pulse data received from key fob 106 or user device 110.)
Regarding claim 36, Nelson further taught the electronic device of claim 35, wherein the processor is configurable to receive the signal transmission from the second wireless device located in a controlled location (Nelson, (Para. 0031, Method 400 also detects step pulse characteristic of a user (i.e. reference RF fingerprint) carrying the other user device at 412. Claim 9. the user device broadcasting information related to the second step pulse into an area proximate the user device (i.e. controlled location).)
Regarding claim 37, Nelson further taught the electronic device of claim 35, further comprising a memory, wherein storing the RF fingerprint in the database comprises storing the RF fingerprint in the memory (Nelson, Para. 0021, 0026).
Regarding claim 39, Nelson further taught the electronic device of claim 35, wherein the signal transmission comprises a Bluetooth Low Energy signal transmission (Nelson, Para. 0016, 0020).
Regarding claim 40, Nelson further taught the electronic device of claim 35, wherein the electronic device is a vehicle (Nelson, Para. 0019).
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson in further view of US 20080235443 A1 to Chow et al. (“Chow”).
Regarding claim 38, Nelson taught the electronic device of claim 35, wherein storing the RF fingerprint in the database comprises storing the RF fingerprint in a memory (Nelson, Para. 0021, 0026) that is remove from the electronic device.
The analogous art Chow taught storing the RF fingerprint in the database comprises storing the RF fingerprint in a memory that is remove from the electronic device. (Para.[0014] In accordance with an aspect of the present invention, processing unit 2 is controlled by a program stored at least partially in flash memory device 3 such that processing unit 2 is operable selectively in: (1) a programming mode, where processing unit 2 activates the input/output interface circuit 5 to receive the data file and the reference fingerprint data from host computer 9, and to store the data file and the reference fingerprint data in flash memory device 3; (2) a data retrieving mode, where processing unit 2 activates the input/output interface circuit 5 to transmit the data file stored in flash memory device 3 to host computer 9; and (3) a data resetting mode, where the data file and the reference finger data are erased from the flash memory device 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the applicant(s) invention was filed to modify the invention of Nelson by including the idea of storing the RF fingerprint in the database comprises storing the RF fingerprint in a memory that is remove from the electronic device as taught by Chow in order to enhance the security (Chow, Para. 0014).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20110248827 A1 (Bertoncini et al.): [0025] As shown in FIG. 1, in a passive RFID tag system, an interrogation device 100 transmits an interrogation signal to the RFID tagged device. The RFID tag 110 returns a signal to the interrogation device, and the interrogation device can determine the identity of the RFID tag device based on the data encoded on the returned signal. The interrogation device can determine whether the RFID signal is genuine by comparing features of the returned signal with previously measured features of the RFID tag signal. A spoofed tag will not have the same RF fingerprint as the original, and will be rejected by the reader.
US 20160128018 A1 (Atreya et al.): [0029] The APs which are in the RF neighborhood of the client measure various client RF parameters (e.g., RSSI, SNR and the like). The APs send the gathered data to the location determination system. The WiFi location determination system 202 gathers the RF parameters from the reporting APs and creates an RF-fingerprint. The WiFi location determination system 202 ties the measured RF fingerprint to the location zone associated with the micro-location initiator or emitter device 208. This permits the WiFi location determination system to keep accurate and current RF-fingerprints of locations of interest. The WiFi location determination system can use the gathered RF-fingerprints to extend micro-location to all WiFi clients (e.g., WiFi only client 206). The WiFi location determination system continuously matches client RF-fingerprints against fingerprints stored for various zones. When a match is identified, the WiFi location determination system notifies the client about the zone it has entered. The client can then poll related applications for data related to the zone.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWNCHOY RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7471. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30A-5P ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Taghi T Arani can be reached at 5712723787. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Shawnchoy Rahman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2438